Since They Say They'll Fix The Bill Later, Pull The Mandates Then Add Them Back In When You Fix It

[WeDidIt]

Pretty simple solution if you ask me.

Heck, they don't even need the mandates until something like 2014 any way.

IF anybody screams about it, just say, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

[Justitia]

1. Works for me! -eom

[Hello_Kitty]

2. But...but...but....it won't WOOOOORK without them!!1!

:sarcasm:

I swear to god the mandates are some DUers favorite part of the plan. There's a punitive authoritarian streak running through a lot of people.

[regnaD kciN]

11. Drop the sarcasm -- what you say is correct...

Unfortunately, that's the case. If we drop the mandate without also dropping the ban on pre-existing conditions (which would leave us back where we are now), insurers will jack up their premiums so high, people who have insurance now won't be able to afford it, and employers will be dropping employee coverage right and left.

I can't stand the idea of mandates, particularly without a government plan to make insurance available for less. But the truth is that we really have only three choices here:

1) Impose an individual mandate (with or without subsidies/public potion/Medicare buy-in) and ban cherry-picking by insurers.

2) Strip the mandate and the ban on cherry-picking, and wind up with basically the status quo we had before.

3) Strip mandates, keep the ban on cherry-picking, and watch premiums for everyone go through the roof.

I'm not saying you should pick one or the other of these. For all I know, keeping the status quo might be the best option. But those are the only three available choices right now, and all the sarcasm in the world won't change that "inconvenient truth."

[Hello_Kitty]

16. The mandate does not stop any of those things from happening.

insurers will jack up their premiums so high, people who have insurance now won't be able to afford it, and employers will be dropping employee coverage right and left.

They can, and will, do all of those things with a mandate.

[WeDidIt]

28. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. n/t

[DJ13]

3. But

Think about all that money the insurance industry gave those Congress members, it would be wrong not to honor their deal and put us all into slavery.

Have you no sense of right and wrong?!

[timeforpeace]

4. Makes perfect sense.

[WeDidIt]

6. the great part is, mandates can be held hostage to a Public Option

"What's that? You want mandates in this bill? Sorry, I'll filibuster unless you add a Public Option, too."

This shit goes both ways and Bernie Samders, Russ Feingold, and Roland Burris could make this happen. They'll never be able to get more than three Republicans to replace Dems joining the filibuster any way.

[chill_wind]

9. No public option? No mandate. That's the thinking here:

Hold something hostage.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/17/best-way-to-%E2%80%9Cfix-it-later%E2%80%9D-is-with-no-individual-mandate-now

[WeDidIt]

10. Wow, that guy says it so much better than I.

Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, and Roland Burris all three need to read that article.

[chill_wind]

13. He essentially doesn't believe in the likelihood

that we'll get a chance to fix it later-- not in any reasonable future-- without at least this much.

[WeDidIt]

26. He's right. n/t

[whirlygigspin]

5. great idea

your country should thank you

[Historic NY]

7. Sorry once the Dems lose the majority it will never be fixed....

much like the donut hole, Social Security and hundreds of other items. 2014..really people need the help now.

[WeDidIt]

8. But if they don't fix it

then nobody is mandated to buy a defective product.

[regnaD kciN]

12. True, but, by the same token...

...if we were to put through a progressive dream bill right now (public option and Medicare buy-in, or even single-payer), the Republicans could always dismantle it if and when they gained the majority and the White House.

In politics, nothing can be set in stone.

[eridani]

37. Passing this bill is guaranteed to lose them the majority n/t

[Unvanguard]

14. That's a bad solution.

First, because you can't have regulatory reform without the mandate.

Second, because the mandates are the best way to guarantee that they actually fix it.

[WeDidIt]

15. IF the mandates are already there

this bill will NEVER be changed.

Kill the mandates to save the bill.

[Unvanguard]

18. Nonsense. They will change it because there will be political pressure to do so.

As costs continue increasing, it will quickly become politically unpalatable to go on without either (a) far more generous subsidies or (b) serious cost controls. This factor will be magnified by the mandate; it will be attenuated without one.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. Yes you can have regulatory reform.

Second, because the mandates are the best way to guarantee that they actually fix it.

:rofl:

"If you promise to be nice and play by the rules, we'll give you a captive market of millions of new customers! And subsidies!"

[Unvanguard]

19. I'm not talking about the insurance companies, I'm talking about the politicians. n/t

[WeDidIt]

29. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. n/t

[Laelth]

22. Congress can pass any law it wants--with or without the mandate.

Why can't we have regulatory reform without the mandate? Is it only because the insurance companies won't allow it?

Sadly, I am still laboring under the illusion that this is a Republic, and that the Congress can pass any law it sees fit to pass. Your assertion is true if, and only if, it's the insurance companies that really control the country and the Congress. Your statement makes sense only if we are no longer a Republic.

Of course, you may be right about that.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Unvanguard]

31. It's not insurance company lobbying, it's economics.

See, for instance, Ezra Klein on the mandate: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/draft_1.html

[Laelth]

32. Oh, I see. You're still laboring under the illusion too.

If so, I can not help you. Congress doesn't have to do what the economists tell them is wise.

They do seem to have to enact a law that codifies the agreement the President has already made with the health insurance companies.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Unvanguard]

34. No, it doesn't HAVE to. But it probably should. Because the argument makes sense.

"You're still laboring under the illusion" is not really a credible response to a well-established and clearly-applicable market failure problem.

[eridani]

36. The economics argument is bullshit unless you are talking about paying for CARE

Klein is advocating that we be forced to support useless parasites.

[Laelth]

20. They still haven't "fixed" NAFTA, and they promised to when it was passed.

But, if they're going to pass this horrible bill, I like your suggestion.

:dem:

-Laelth

[WeDidIt]

21. If the mandates get pulled, I guarantee the bill will be revisited

and the mandates will be held hostage to a public option.

Both sides of a debate can play this hardball shit.

[Laelth]

23. I suspect that if the mandate gets pulled, the bill will die.

Of course, I like that idea even better.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Hello_Kitty]

33. The parallels to NAFTA are overwhelming.

You need to put worker and environmental regulations in place BEFORE you start exporting jobs.

You need to put cost controls and regulations with teeth on the insurers BEFORE you mandate the purchase of insurance.

Yet, in both cases, they put the cart before the horse.

[Laelth]

35. Agreed. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Nikki Stone1]

24. The mandate IS the bill. Without the mandates, there is no bill at all.

Everything else can be destroyed but the mandates will remain.

[WeDidIt]

25. Then kill the bill because the mandates are the most odious and unacceptable part

without a robust public option.

So there is your choice, pull the mandates, or kill the bill. The public option ain't goin' back in at this time.

[WeDidIt]

30. BTW, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. n/t

[David Zephyr]

27. It's not just the mandates. This bill is filled with toxins.

Kill the bill.